APHC010483552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9510/2025 Between: 1. YOGESH NABILAL KHALE, S/O LATE SABILAL VALE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O SARU KUMBAR GAUV VILLAGE, INDAPUR TALUKA, PUNE DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO Chittoor PS, GRP Guntakal, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 1 on bail in crime No. 48 of 2025 of Chittoor Police Station, GRP Guntakal, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 15-07-2025 at about 1.30 p.m., on platform No. 3 in Chittoor Railway Station, the Sub Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested accused No. 1 while he was in possession of 20 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. SriB.Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand hasbeen falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime.It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner ofhis family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakesto abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law.The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assurescontinued cooperation in future proceedings.It is also urged that the 3 allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitionerwould not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law.Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner doesnot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 1 is that with the aid of other accused, he had indulged in possession and transportation of 20 K.Gs. of Ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 15-07-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 67 days. The petitioner is permanent resident of SaruKumbarGauv Village, Indapur Taluka, Pune District, Maharashtra State. He has got fixed abode. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has got 21 adverse criminal antecedents, one of them is under the provisions of 'the NDPS Act' vide crime No. 73 of 2025. Be that as it may, the petitioner shall be presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that criminal antecedents should not be taken into consideration while considering the application for grant of bail. So far, seven witnesses are examined. Thus, material portion of the investigation insofar as role of the petitioner is concerned is completed. Hence, chances of the petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation would not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditions: 1 2020 (11) SCC 648 5 (i) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (v) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (vi) The petitioner-accused No. 1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 6 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:19-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9510 OF 2025 DATE: 19-09-2025 JSK